Dan’s Comments

I can see the case of violating the EULA, but not copyright. Patching [any] code should classify the modified code as a derivative work, thus not a copyright violation. Not saying that the new code would then be eligible for a new copyright, for the one doing the patching. That would be a bit of a mess.

If I did pass laws like this, I sure as heck would add very specific mandates for upgrades ans expansions. It would be their one and only chance, to retain the market. Otherwise, the city takes it over.

That border issue is an abuse by the executive branch that the court has chosen not to correct [yet]. To lay all blame on the court alone is disingenuous. Again, the court is not at the root of the problem.

I don't mean to imply that the ruling involved is correct, or a good thing. But in regards to the function of the court, it is they who dictate our understanding of what a law means, not what we want them to understand it means.

When adverse consequences get bad enough, the push is to get the law rewritten. But that's not the court's fault.

Any lineman worth his paycheck would be sure to isolate the circuit he is working on, regardless. In addition, they could easily have a law mandating a cut off for any solar system when the grid is unavailable, if yours was their actual concern.

The problem with the broadband market is not one of regulation or deregulation but consumption. People pay ungodly amounts for internet and video because they want to. Eventually, the price will get so high that people will come to their senses and go without [the video piece]. The cord cutting trend is the start of this. As to the internet piece, there is no way to get around the hard wired network, right now. Eventually, there will be a connectivity solution that gets rid of the start up cost of the network. That advance will change the market to allow competition. Then there will be a massive adjustment. Then, Comcast et al, and AT&T will cry to Congress for help. "We don't have the money to upgrade our network to compete with this." {sob}

Comey didn't do that. The e-mails did. Where Hillary chose to store them did. Her staff choosing to screen/destroy did. Her [in hindsight] bad policy decisions did. Don't blame the whistle blower. She could have come out of this squeaky clean if she would have turned over the server without deleting anything to the government.

The problem I have with waiting for impeachment is that the claim would undoubtedly be made that the alleged crimes occurred BEFORE she was president, therefore an impeachment would be invalid. It wouldn't be the furthest legal stretch our government has made.

So in other words, anybody in politics gets a free pass until they are in charge of those who would prosecute them. That has got to be the most extreme case of regulatory capture I have heard of in my life.

The case was never closed. Comey's first announcement was only that. The case is ongoing, always was. This was an update announcement. If this is illegal election tampering, then it's further proof that Washington is untouchable by law enforcement, or have any remaining accountability.